8. Following the November 2003 Assembly elections
which were the first to be held under the new system introduced
by the Electoral Fraud Act, a representative survey conducted
by the Electoral Commission found that 65% of the population believed
that "new laws about registering and voting have helped to
overcome electoral fraud."[11]
A further survey in April 2003 indicated that approximately 72%
of the population then felt that the new system would help alleviate
their concerns about electoral fraud.[12]
Before the implementation of the 2002 Act some two thirds of the
population thought electoral fraud was common. After its implementation,
more than two thirds had confidence that the new system would
help to reduce fraud, though the majority did not believe that
fraud had been eliminated altogether. This is a significant
improvement in perception.

9. A survey of presiding officers in the 2001 general
election, and repeated after the 2003 Assembly elections, indicated
that the percentage of presiding officers who reported having
seen people voting more than once under different names had decreased
from 3% in 2001 to 0.1% in 2003. The proportion who had experience
of voters being turned away because someone had already voted
in their name had declined from 4% to 1%, and the proportion who
had been presented with ID documents which they suspected to be
forgeries had dropped from 3% in 2001 to 0.2% in 2003.[13]
This evidence was further supported by evidence given by the Northern
Ireland Police Service to the Electoral Commission.[14]

10. On the basis of the all the evidence currently
available to us, we are satisfied that the Electoral Fraud Act
(Northern Ireland) 2002 has been successful in reducing both the
perception among the electorate of the prevalence of fraud and
the actual level of electoral fraud, so far as it can be measured.
The measures introduced in the Act have served to increase the
level of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

12. The Electoral Commission has conducted an analysis
of the available evidence on the pre- and post-2002 Act electoral
registers in Northern Ireland and compared these to Census data.
The total number of names on the August 2002 electoral register
made up 95.5% of the number of people who, according to the 2001
Census, were eligible to vote. In theory, this indicates that
the registration level was 95.5% of the population, a high figure
compared to the 93% UK-wide registration level of 93%[16].
On the December 2002 register, the number of registered voters
as compared to census data on the number of eligible voters had
dropped to just 86% as compared to the 95.5% on the August 2002
register.

13. In practice, matching the names of the electoral
register to people counted accurately in the Census is not possible
because the recorded registration level will be affected by people
who are not registered, as well as 'phantom names' that should
not be on the register. These two groups in part cancel each other
out although the net reported registration level will be skewed
one way or the other if one of the two groups is significantly
greater than the other. Ward-level data from the former, pre-2002
Act register lends support to the Electoral Commission's conclusion
that the 95.5% registration level under the previous system was
inflated. The former register reflected a "significant proportion
of wards [with] registration rates well in excess of 100%,
illustrating the fact that there are more people registered in
these wards than are recorded as actually living there."
Indeed, one ward had a registration level of 126%.[17]

14. There is a high correlation between the registration
levels of the August and December 2002 registers. Wards that had
had high registration levels under the former system tended also
to have high levels of registration under the new system. The
opposite was also the case. The generally high level of correlation
between the registration levels in wards under the former and
the new registers is reassuring. However, the level of registration
declined disproportionately in the most economically deprived
areas and urban areas[18].
Seventeen of the 20 wards with the greatest decline in registrations
are in Belfast constituencies.

This finding is a particular cause for concern in
Northern Ireland because the adult population of Northern Ireland
is increasing at a rate of 0.7% per annum.[23]
The Electoral Commission warned that:

" unless it is rectified, the downward
trend in the register has the potential of embedding itself structurally
in the registration process. If the register is in decline, then
the number that can be canvassed will also tend to fall from one
canvass to the next, thus reinforcing the cycle."[24]

The registration rate in May 2004 had declined to
just 84.8% of those eligible for inclusion on the register.

19. We are concerned by the emerging evidence
of a continuous structural process of decline in the electoral
register. Further serious decline would place the democratic integrity
of the electoral system in Northern Ireland at risk. We recommend
that the Electoral Commission should identify and evaluate the
options available for arresting the decline in the register within
the framework of the Electoral Fraud Act as a matter of urgency.
The Electoral Commission should involve the Chief Electoral Officer
in this process in order to ensure that any recommendations for
improvement made are practical and capable of implementation.

"What we would ultimately like to see is that
the process of elections and registration is part of the curriculum
in the final years of secondary schools and perhaps in the first
year in tertiary education whereby it becomes the norm that the
students in that age group be given some instruction on the political
process, on the parliamentary process and on the registration
process, and as part of that system that people are encouraged
to register both for the main register but equally in order to
get an electoral identity card because we see that as being somewhat
of an attractive item for people of that age."[29]

22. Electoral processes do not currently appear in
the school curriculum, and the Electoral Office is discussing
with the Northern Ireland Office the possibility of launching
an outreach programme in schools, colleges, and possibly universities
in Northern Ireland.[30]
This would involve a workshop, possibly in conjunction with visits
by the mobile ID card unit. However, this proposal depends on
funding being made available to the Electoral Office.[31]

23. The Electoral Commission is also targeting young
people with specific advertising and outreach campaigns. Campaigns
on student campuses, outreach campaigns in post-primary schools,
as well as promotional activities at locations likely to be attended
by young people have taken place.[32]
The Commission told us that, in the course of one weekend, a Commission
outreach officer attending a summer festival in Belfast was able
to identify and sign up 500 young people who were not on the electoral
register.[33]

24. Another novel approach which could increase the
levels of registration among young people is to advertise the
electoral identity card to them as a desirable means of proving
their age and identity, for example, in clubs or to obtain credit.[34]
Once the interest of young people has been stimulated and they
have made contact with the Electoral Office, the Office considered
that it would be easier to achieve their registration:

" there has been some indication that when
young people are trying to get the ID cardand they are
trying perhaps to get it for other reasons to prove that they
are 18 or overthere is some carry-forward interest into
the area of registration and some of the rolling registration
applications have come about because of young people trying to
get ID cards."[35]

25. These initiatives are worthwhile and should continue.
Consideration should also be given to placing responsibility on
adult members of households who are being canvassed to identify
young people who are 17 to the Electoral Office. This will assist
the Office to contact those who will soon be eligible to vote,
and help ensure that future voters are properly informed. While
the responsibility for registering should remain that of the individual
concerned, it is vital that those who are 'coming of age' should
be made aware of their future role in the electoral system.

26. We are especially concerned about the unacceptably
low levels of registration in the 17-24 age group. We commend
the initiatives of the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission
in taking the electoral registration process to young people in
schools, colleges and festivals and urge that this should be developed
further. We recommend that the Government ensures that extra funding
be made available to develop adequately a full range of outreach
programmes to engage young people.

27. Intensive efforts must be made to bring about
a system in which 17 and 18 year olds are entered on the electoral
register as a matter of course. We recommend that consideration
is given to making electoral registration, and the electoral process
in general, a compulsory part of the curriculum for 16-17 year
olds; and that adults in households should be made responsible
for identifying to the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland young
people of 17 residing in their households to assist the Electoral
Office in making contact with them.

29. Subsequent research carried out by the Electoral
Commission has indicated that the association between social deprivation
and electoral registration, as reflected in annual canvas data,
is only part of the picture since the uptake of rolling registration
appears to be higher in areas of high social deprivation than
in other areas, therefore partially offsetting the lower levels
of registration achieved in annual canvasses in these areas.[38]

30. In the December 2002 canvass, the inverse correlation
between areas of high deprivation and low levels of electoral
registration was exacerbated by the fact that areas of high deprivation
were more likely than other areas to be canvassed by post as opposed
to a canvasser. For example, the Belfast wards of Ardoyne, Woodstock
and Shaftesbury were all canvassed fully or in part by post due
to a shortage of canvassers. This situation arose as a result
of difficulties in recruiting canvassers for those areas. This
was particularly unfortunate because postal canvassing is correlated
with lower than average levels of registration.[39]
However, the Electoral Office has assured us that this situation
had changed by the time of the 2003 canvass when canvassers were
recruited for all wards.[40]

31. The Electoral Commission is prioritising its
work in areas of social deprivation, for example, by initiating
cooperation with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and by
encouraging advice workers from the voluntary sector to highlight
electoral registration in their work.[41]

33. The Electoral Commission has acknowledged that
people with disabilities are less likely than others to be on
the electoral register.[43]
Survey evidence suggests that disabled people were almost twice
as likely notto be registered as other people because
they had found the forms difficult to understand.[44]
The Electoral Office has initiated a programme of cooperation
with charities and other disability groups in order to make the
electoral registration process more accessible to people with
a variety of disabilities.[45]
The Electoral Commission now makes its material available in formats
such as Braille and audio tape.[46]

34. Under the current arrangements for individual
registration, a parent or carer of a person with a learning disability
or mental health problem may sign on that person's behalf. Thereafter
they receive a letter from the Electoral Office in which they
are asked to confirm that the person in question would "be
capable of personally making a decision for whom to vote, without
the assistance of another person". MENCAP claims that this
procedure is liable to lead to eligible persons being omitted
from the register, and that the letter "can be read as if
to emphasise the denial of registration." MENCAP argues that
the letter should be worded in a more positive manner. Based on
information from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission
states that approximately 1,000such letters were sent
out to carers, but of these, only 120 carers / relatives subsequently
confirmed the request for registration.[47]
However, the Chief Electoral Officer defended current practice:[48]

"We have had quite a number of people who have
accepted that, having attested on behalf of someone else, that
person should not be on the register. Therefore we have a number
of people who previously, under the old family system, were probably
wrongly included on the register and really should not have been
there, but that has now come to light under individual registration
and as a result some people with learning disabilities have been
taken off the register. That is perhaps the way it should be:
people who are not capable of making up their own minds should
never have been there in the first place."[49]

However, it seems unlikely that such a high proportion
of carers (nearly 90%), would have submitted an electoral registration
form on behalf of their relative or friend without due consideration
for the mental capacity of the person being registered. The Electoral
Commission has admitted that "the process of individual registration
may inadvertently have impacted on people with learning disabilities,
thus effectively disenfranchising hundreds of people who in the
past may have voted."[50]

35. Although there is clearly a balance to be struck,
it would appear that a review of procedures and correspondence
relating to electors with learning disabilities is justified.
We recommend that the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland
reviews its procedures for dealing with persons with learning
disabilities and their carers with the aim of trying to be more
inclusive.

36. The particularly low levels of registration
among young people, less advantaged social groups, and people
with disabilities, are a cause of concern. We believe that strategies
need to be put in place by the Chief Electoral Officer to increase
the level of registration in these groups. The Northern Ireland
Office must also be prepared to make extra funding available to
achieve this.

Electoral fraud:
as discussed previously, there is no means of gauging accurately
the real extent of fraudulent entries on the electoral register.

The carry-forward mechanism:
under the former registration system, the carry-forward mechanism
meant that names of non-respondents would be carried over from
one register to the next for one year before being deleted. This
meant that a name could have remained on the register for up to
24 months even though the person in question had died or moved
away. This applied equally to a person who had moved within Northern
Ireland and whose name would therefore have been registered at
two different addresses. This may have accounted for up to 10%
of the register at any point in time in the view of the Electoral
Office.[52]

38. In addition to reducing electoral fraud as discussed
earlier, the changes in the registration process following the
Electoral Fraud Act 2002 have resulted in a reduction in the number
of registered electors for at least two other reasons: the abolition
of the carry-over mechanism which accounts for the greatest part
of the decline in the number of people on the electoral register;
and individuals not returning registration forms because of apathy
or concerns about the disclosure of personal information such
as national insurance numbers.

40. While there is agreement between the Electoral
Office and the Electoral Commission about the main cause of the
drop in voter registrations, the view of the Electoral Office
that a system of carry-forward should be introduced is not shared
by the Electoral Commission.[55]
The view of the Chief Electoral Officer was that in the absence
of a carry-forward mechanism, the register's year-on-year decrease
was inevitable and he argued for a revised system of carry-forward:

" I would like to go further than
simply having the carry forward, I would like to see a register
that had occurrence of perhaps three years. I see the reinstitution
of the carry forward as in effect giving us a register with a
lifetime of two years but I think it would be better to have a
register with a period of three years. I think we could then spend
our resources and time in the interim period looking out and finding
those people who are in the marginalised groups and getting them
on to the register, getting them into the system rather than going
around and finding the same people who year on year conscientiously
complete their forms and send them in. I think we could spend
our time and our money in a much better way to a better effect
as far as the register is concerned."[56]

However, Mr Singh of the Electoral Commission thought
that carry-forward in the current circumstance held dangers, "...if
you simply reintroduce the carry forward facility for a new system
of individual registration there is a concern we would have
this might actually muddy the waters and actually perhaps lead
to needless duplication."[57]

41. In a written statement to the House of Commons
on 30November 2004, John Spellar, Minister of State for Northern
Ireland, announced that the Government is "committed top
moving away from the legal requirement for the register to be
completely refreshed each year." He announced a consultation
with political parties in Northern Ireland, and indicated that
primary legislation may be brought forward in order to reinstate
the carry-forward mechanism at least as a temporary measure ahead
of the local elections in May 2005.

42. Any electoral registration system has to balance
inclusiveness with accuracy.

43. There is little doubt that the decline in
registrations results largely from the abolition of the carry-forward
mechanism. Ways must be sought to counter the unfortunate effect
of a sound decision. This change was crucial in eliminating 'phantom'
names from the register and we do not recommend the re-introduction
of the former carry-forward mechanism. It is also our view that
the lifespan of the electoral register should be maintained at
12 months.

44. There is clearly a need for urgent action,
but we believe that alternative and perhaps unconventional options
should be explored. For example, it could be worthwhile exploring
a compromise in which people who fail to respond to a canvass
are excluded from the register but their details are retained
for a further twelve months in order that they can be canvassed
again the following year. Such a solution might give rise to data
protection issues, but it may be worth considering whether these
could be resolved.

45. We are puzzled that the views of the Electoral
Commission and the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland differ
markedly as to whether or not a system of carry-forward should
be implemented. This issue is of considerable importance to the
electoral process in Northern Ireland and we expect the Electoral
Commission and the Electoral Office to examine the issue together
and come to a clear conclusion which best ensures the integrity
of the register. For example, it could be worthwhile exploring
a compromise in which people who fail to respond to a canvass
are excluded from the register but their details are retained
for a further twelve months in order that they can be canvassed
again the following year. Such a solution might give rise to data
protection issues, but it may be worth considering whether these
could be resolved.

48. The problems of young people registering are
compounded by their high mobility, and among students in particular
it is common to have two addresses.[60]
The Electoral Office has no way of routinely acquiring information
about all young people reaching the age of eighteen,[61]
and those aged 17 and 18 do not automatically receive a pre-printed
form but have to request one.This places the onus on them
to play an active role in achieving registration. The issue of
low levels of electoral registration and turnout among young people
is not unique to Northern Ireland, but it is a major cause for
concern if the system of registration there amplifies such a tendency.

49. The shift from household to individual registration
is one of the key changes resulting from the Electoral Fraud (Northern
Ireland) Act 2002. This change was essential to eliminate some
of the possible sources of 'phantom' names on the register. However,
this is now one of the key factors contributing to the low levels
of registration in certain population groups.

51. Apathy and a lack of engagement in politics
is not unique to Northern Ireland and it is crucial to attempt
to stimulate greater participation in the democratic process throughout
the UK. But we believe this task assumes a special urgency in
Northern Ireland where the history of violent conflict make efforts
to ensure that the entire population feels able to engage in the
electoral process a vital factor in the goal of establishing a
fully normal society.

53. The Commission has monitored the degree to which
people in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be well informed
about the requirements for registering and voting. In July 2004,
that level of awareness was "very high".[66]
Prior to the last canvass in April 2003, 84% of the population
said they knew about the changes to the electoral registration
system.[67] Although
this is a relatively high level of awareness, the level of awareness
of the changes in the registration process is relatively low among
the young people. In April 2003, only 68% of the 17-24 age group
said they were aware of the changes in the electoral process.

54. The Electoral Commission is responsible for publicising
the political process, although the Electoral Office also undertakes
some work in this area. Since the implementation of the 2002 Act,
the Electoral Commission has engaged in extensive public awareness
campaigns including television advertisements, bill-board posters,
and posters on buses.[68]

55. We commend the work that has been done by
the Electoral Commission in informing and educating the public
in Northern Ireland about the changes in the process of electoral
registration and in the process of voting. We believe that regular,
hard hitting campaigns to promote general awareness of the electoral
and registration systems amongst the general population are required
to prevent the registration level dropping. In addition, advertising
and outreach campaigns targeted specifically at young people and
vulnerable groups who have below average registration levels should
be developed further as a matter of urgency.

58. When giving evidence to the Committee in July
2004, the Electoral Commission as well as the Electoral Office
for Northern Ireland (EONI) indicated that the numbers of people
without some form of appropriate photographic ID were likely to
be relatively low.[70]
In its report on the 2002 Act published in December 2003, the
Electoral Commission estimated that some 37,000 voters who are
on the electoral register do not have the appropriate photographic
ID required to vote. At that time, the Commission indicated that
every effort needed to be made to increase the take-up of the
ID card.[71]

59. In trying to explain the discrepancy between
the number who had indicated an interest in getting an EIC in
2002 and the actual application rate for the card, the Electoral
Office told us that:

" there were 235,000 people who ticked
the box on the 2002 registration form, and we simply believe that
many of those people ticked the box but when they got the application
form which explained they could use a driving licence, passport
or translink senior smart pass, they realised they did not perhaps
need it. We believe that there is not a huge demand over and above
the 90,000 odd that we have produced."[72]

60. Meanwhile, between 3,500 and 4,000 voters were
rejected at polling stations during the November 2003 Assembly
elections and the June 2004 European Parliament elections. About
half were rejected because their ID, for example, passport or
driving licence was out of date.[73]
This is not a significant number in the view of the Electoral
Office.[74]

61. We believe that the introduction of a requirement
for voters to show photographic ID at polling stations was right
and has been modestly successful. However, a number of voters
were unable to cast their votes in the 2003 Assembly and 2004
European Parliament elections because they lacked appropriate
ID. This consequence is unfortunate and we recommend that efforts
to increase the uptake of the Electoral Identity Card should be
redoubled. Campaigns to remind voters of the requirement for photographic
ID need to be repeated regularly, particularly ahead of elections.

63. Holding elections in the period of the annual
canvass causes confusion on the part of the public and places
enormous burdens on election staff. We recommend that the Government
should consider amending legislation to ensure that elections
are not called within the annual canvass period.